ironically, this week, the senate is proposing an amendment to copyright legislation to REMOVE PROTECTION from 'orphaned' or unattributed works.

this means, basically, if you do a piece of work that isn't credited to you, it is assumed that it is an orphaned work and immediately deemed copyright free!

this is so dangerous to artists and musicians and anyone making things in so many ways i don't even know where to begin.

i just faxed my own letter of disapproval to the following three senators heading the judiciary committee (names followed by fax numbers, please read the graphic artists guild action alert for more info on what to include in your letter / more info about the situation in general):

this decision is being made quickly, so it is URGENT that people write and act now.on this website is a list of all the senators involved in the committee on the judiciary:http://judiciary.senate.gov/members.cfm

there are other methods of contact: email, telephone and letter. please read more and let the senate know this is WRONG!thank you!!!

me neither. i also can't believe it's not ALL OVER THE NEWS. especially since this applies equally to writers. if something they write is unattributed, it is free to reprint, according to this proposed legislation. please contact your reps!!

unattributed works. like, even - as one website gives as an example - if the work is signed "mark smith" but there are 30 mark smith illustrators and they can't discern which one it is, or get ahold of whoever it is to confirm (there is a clause about something like 'reasonable investigation' - which i wonder if that's as much as a google search?) then it's considered orphaned.signed works could still be considered unattributed.

If you don't have the time to write to them all, it's most important to write to the Chair, Senator Arlen Specter, Senators Hatch and Leahy because they ordered the Copyright Office to conduct this study, and to the senator from your home state- if one of them serves on this committee. That's 4 letters minimum.

i know on a logical level, but every time i hear something as outrageous as this, the idealist/optimist in me is as horrified as if it's the first time.

but doesn't it make sense to protect patents on HIV/AIDS drugs made by billion dollar corporations and thereby allow thousands to die, while abolishing any copyrights/protection for small-business-type creators? urgh.

um...I sort of went on a tangent and I suck as far as writing goes because of my lack of education, but here is what I plan to send. I wouldnt mind someone editing it for me so that I don't sound like the cowpoke farmgirl I sometimes envision myself as:

Senator _____________,

I am not in favor of "orphaned" artworks being copyright free. It is extremely difficult for creater's to perseude the public to credit the artist. There are a few people that do give credit to the artist out of politeness, but for every one person that credits the artist, there are so many that do not.

A good portion of people who make art rely on the little income provided to them from that art. For artist's who make such little income in the first place to have to get into legal battles over thier own art is proposterous. If the artist had no proof of the art being theirs, it could easily be "stolen" by any number of larger companies and used to accrue income that the original artist would never see, let alone additional income from sheer popularity of the art.

Furthermore, this amendment would instill a sense of dishonesty to the people of America. There are certain cultural respects that are passed from generation to generation. If we do not teach our children that it is important to credit the person who has created something we are teaching them that they can steal anything.

Purely for examples sake, the Native American's where the creators of the tipi. Now there are people who are profitting from making teepee's for children with out any credit to the culture or people who invented it. These children that play with these teepee's are growing up having no idea about the culture behind this object. There are no royalties being payed to tribal councils. This leaves modern Natives with a sense of disrespect for their culture and sadness that they aren't able to pass along their culture to the next generation.

This feeling is felt by artists when they see X company advertising with their art. Each piece of art and each person who create's art surrounds itself with a certain culture and that culture, big or small is being compromised when it is used with out permission.

i think any letter that comes from personal response to what this law would mean is an effective one. i would do a spell check, and also recognize that this law will not just impact visual artists, but creators of all medium. its bias toward the end user is a slap in the face to creators of all kind.thank you so much for taking action on this!!

I don't know, this issue seems more complicated than that. There is no precise definition yet for what constitutes an "orphan work." Here are some very compelling arguements for the amendment:

Duke Law: Center for the Study of Public Domain (http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/orphanworks.html)"The costs of an inadequate system of access to orphan works are huge: needlessly disintegrating films, prohibitive costs for libraries, incomplete and spotted histories, thwarted scholarship, digital libraries put on hold, delays to publication. In the cases where the work is truly an orphan work, those costs are tragic because they are completely unnecessary. This report describes the orphan works problem, and offers a proposal to fix it."